ThisIsCommonSense.org

We at U.S. Term Limits once criticized Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House at the time, for his hypocrisy over term limits. Upset by our call for simple integrity, Newt angrily exploded, “They don’t have a clue how to run this country!”

He was right, of course. We don’t have a clue about how to run the country. I wouldn’t even try myself. But Newt didn’t know how to run the country either. Nor does Bill Clinton. Nor do any of the presidential wannabes or the congressional candidates.

Of course, no one should be “running” the country. No one should be trying to. The whole purpose of our Constitution is to protect us from would-​be dictators, would-​be managers of the country. In America we each run our own lives and we employ representatives to run the government our government not the country. There’s a big difference between the two. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we would soon want for bread.”

Dr. Tom Coburn, who has limited his terms in Congress, sees the same thing, ” I believe more than ever that our nation’s problems have been created because career politicians have set themselves apart as an elite class of people trying to dictate to us how we run our lives.”

The longer politicians spend in Washington passing laws, listening to lobbyists and giving speeches, the more they delude themselves into thinking they run the country. We know better though, don’t we?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Have you ever been called a “special interest”?

It’s not a term of endearment. It’s an attack and it gets thrown around a lot these days.

One reason is that the career politicians in Washington do indeed cater to special interests, at the expense of the rest of us. Some argue that every group and every individual is a special interest. Their goal is to cloud the issue, not clarify it.

If that were true the phrase would have no meaning. It would be what Ayn Rand called an “anti-​concept.” But it’s not true. There are special interests and general interests and a big difference between the two.

Term limits supporters have been derided as just another special interest. But where term limits are in effect all across the country no one receives a unique benefit unavailable to others. Term limits apply equally to all.

So what’s an example of a special interest?

We pay subsidies to sugar growers. That doesn’t benefit everyone. It benefits the few. Nor did the rest of us ever approve it. Special interests get their way in the backroom, not in the light of day. The White House and various congressmen have begun pushing a special tax law that would give only one man Abe Pollin, owner of the NBA basketball team in Washington a $238 million dollar tax break.

No doubt like the rest of us, Pollin is over-​taxed. But he is also a special interest. Taxes should be reduced for everybody, not just Abe. When the general interest is served, we all benefit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Have you ever gotten a bill from the phone company or electric company that made you almost fall down dead from shock?

Most of us have been the victim of a billing error. And though it’s not always easy to get it corrected, in the end it all works out. And of course, sometimes there is no error in the bill and we have to struggle to pay it. In these cases we’re usually a lot wiser about using the product or service in the future.

That’s exactly how I feel when I consider my tax bill. There must be some mistake! But there is no mistake. The federal government consumes over 20 percent of our GDP gross domestic product. And when you add up all the other state and local taxes, property tax and sales tax and what not, pretty soon it’s clear that more than 40 percent of our income goes straight to the government, most to the feds.

If we overspend in our personal budget, we feel our own pain. We pay the bill and we change our behavior. But this is about the politics of careerism. We send folks to Washington who say they’ll cut taxes, but when they get to Washington they won’t let go of the power that comes with spending our money.

President Clinton actually had the audacity to say that a one-​percent reduction in spending was “reckless.” It’s time for a change. Time for a few battalions of citizen legislators who understand that cutting at least one paltry percent of discretionary government spending makes a lot more sense then adding to our already outrageous tax bill. It would be nice if we had a few bucks left to pay the rent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The first word out of your mouth when you consider the incredible promise of the Internet is probably “Wow.” But the first word out of the mouths of career politicians is likely to be, “Tax. Tax now.”

In keeping with the usual Washington doublethink, Congress has declared a three-​year moratorium on taxing the Internet to avoid angering consumers. But then Congress went on to establish yet another commission to study how to tax electronic commerce when the moratorium ends. That way, the politicians will be able to get a running start.

The commission is already drawing up tax plans. Local, state and congressional career politicians see every human activity as just another way to extract money. Some are now actually arguing that their tax base will be lost if they cannot slap new taxes on electronic commerce. Their pleas are ridiculous.

Tax money is pouring into governments at the local, state and federal level in record amounts. And these politicians conveniently ignore that companies doing business on the Internet are already subject to plenty of different taxes.

That’s why a new group has formed to fight Internet taxes at www.e‑freedom.org. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said it best, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The Internet is a revolution that can benefit people all over the globe. If politicians want to get their hands on it, they should use a mouse and try some double-clicking.

Leave the taxman out of it. When I get on-​line I want to hear “you’ve got mail,” not “you’ve got taxes.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is often portrayed as a pro-​defense fiscal conservative. But in Washington perceptions often don’t match reality.

Monday, November 15, 1999

Republicans are proving just as good as the Democrats at spending lots of wasteful pork in their districts. Which party you belong to doesn’t seem to matter. What matters is whether you’re a career politician.

There’s a big difference between honest competition to win contracts for work that needs to be done and pork barrel make-​work programs. The make-​work hurts our military readiness by stealing precious resources from the useful projects.

When the military said it didn’t want the LHD‑8 helicopter carrier, Senator Lott ferociously lobbied the Navy to support the spending. Why? Because it was being built in (you-​guessed-​it) Mississippi. Lott got his way. A spokesman for the Senator explained, “If there’s some help he can bring to his constituents to alleviate a need or provide a job, he’s not going to make apologies for that.”

Fiscal conservative? Champion of military readiness? Nope. Spending defense money for any purpose other than defending the country is just plain wrong. And Senator Lott’s pork sure isn’t helping the average person in Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of citizens living in poverty.

The longer career politicians stay in Washington, the more eagerly they pursue their political interests at the expense of the public interest. We don’t need the politicians’ pork. We do need to defend our country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Massachusetts is the cradle of liberty. But lately the politicians and judges of the state have been acting more like old King George than Samuel Adams.

Years ago, the people pushed through a petition that required their legislature to vote on term limits. But the state legislature simply refused to follow its clear constitutional duty. No vote was ever taken.

So much for “We the People.”

Now the highest court in the state has handed down a decision that could destroy the right of the people to ever petition their government again. The law says that petition forms cannot be altered i.e., language cannot be changed or hidden from those who sign.

But the court suddenly interprets this to mean that if a signer happens to spills a drop of coffee on the petition, everyone’s signature is invalidated. This kind of ruling against common sense makes it impossible to successfully petition. Most residents of Massachusetts believe in common sense. So did the Founding Fathers.

Heck, a guy named Thomas Paine wrote a whole book on the subject. Thankfully, the Washington-​based Initiative & Referendum Institute has stepped in to fund an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The group’s president, Dane Waters says, “This decision is judicial dictatorship. It’s the kind of thing that once led to throwing tea into Boston’s harbor.”

Let’s hope the justices were just being crazy here and not deliberately wicked. Let’s also hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will restore sanity to the courts and freedom to the people of Massachusetts. Don’t let the political class rob the cradle … of liberty.

This is Common Sense. Yep. Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.